I dunno actually what I want to do. What I do know is that I don't plan on leaving this public agency anytime soon. I feel like the private sector you learn so much more than in the public sector, so I guess in order to keep up I'm going to school =D. Additionally, bad economy equals less work which can translate to more studying!Advanced education at a time of slow economy IS a smart invesment - invest in yourself!
However, what do you want to do with an environmental engineering degree? (says the guy with an environmental engineering degree ... )
Your thoughts on permit reviewers
- Thread starter utoots21
- Start date
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
I know your pain McEngr. :smileyballs:
This brings up an intresting story.
Last year my company was doing some work on the MGM center in Las Vegas. Our calcualtions had used some Powers screw type anchors in them. So, of course we used a current ICC report and submitted the calculations.
You would think that was that, right?
Well, it took 6 months for Clark County to review our calculations and they had found that the ICC report that we has used in our calculations was revised during this time. They made us resubmit the whole calcualtion booklet because of this.
[some] Plan checkers are dumbasses. :deadhorse:
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh man, how I feel your pain kevo!!! Seriously. I feel your pain.
Oh, and did I mention that I feel your pain?
This leads me to another interesting story.
The biggest problem I have with plans examiners is how they almost have too much oversight on the west coast:
We really tried to win over an architecture firm on a Winery here along the Oregon Coast. The architect does these types of interesting structures all the time. We were really kissing their a$$es the whole time. Then, we get a plan review response of like 20 comments totalling like 5 pages. The owner was pissed. There were some supplemental retaining wall and cat walk structure items in an addendum which was to follow about 3-4 months after our submittal. Because of the plans review, the owner decided that we weren't competent... :smileyballs:
Well, the next engineering firm only had to do a retaining wall and a catwalk for the wine tanks. They had just as much, if not more, comments than ours on about 10% of the scope of work that we had.
Guess who came out looking like a jerk in all of this? The plans reviewer. All parties expressed the fact that the plans reviewer had too much oversight and was the primary delay in the project.
I tend to agree. I believe the reviewer should be proactive at helping the process, not delaying it. If it were gross incompetence, I could understand. However, when a plan reviewer gets on his high horse the EOR=oxymoron.
Last edited by a moderator:
most reviewers are right out of school, and have never done the work, so are in no position to review it...I see it daily...
when I confront them and ask them to specifically point out where it non-conforms, 9/10 times they can't...why?
because they base many of their comments on opinion, not law/code...
they like to prove they know more than the designer and more often than not it comes down to design preference, NOT code compliance...
they don't realize that there is more than one way to skin a cat...
If I get something I think is chickenshyte I go up the chain of command until I find some experience...
it cracks me up when they try to second guess electrical design...
I had a guy argue with me that it was improper to supply an out building (dewatering centrifuge 3 HP) with 208/3 because my primary system MCC's were 480/3 feeding 75HP blowers...he could not grasp that 90% of the load was 120, so using 208 I only needed one xfmr in the main building to supply all my 120...
the reviewers I think are competent will call with the simple stuff, ie CAD errors, typos, etc., to clarify...
they will check design assumptions, ie, EDU's, etc., basis of design, etc....not nit-pick on stuff that doesn't matter...
give someone a little authority and they will confuse it with 'power'
we humans are silly creatures...lol
when I confront them and ask them to specifically point out where it non-conforms, 9/10 times they can't...why?
because they base many of their comments on opinion, not law/code...
they like to prove they know more than the designer and more often than not it comes down to design preference, NOT code compliance...
they don't realize that there is more than one way to skin a cat...
If I get something I think is chickenshyte I go up the chain of command until I find some experience...
it cracks me up when they try to second guess electrical design...
I had a guy argue with me that it was improper to supply an out building (dewatering centrifuge 3 HP) with 208/3 because my primary system MCC's were 480/3 feeding 75HP blowers...he could not grasp that 90% of the load was 120, so using 208 I only needed one xfmr in the main building to supply all my 120...
the reviewers I think are competent will call with the simple stuff, ie CAD errors, typos, etc., to clarify...
they will check design assumptions, ie, EDU's, etc., basis of design, etc....not nit-pick on stuff that doesn't matter...
give someone a little authority and they will confuse it with 'power'
we humans are silly creatures...lol
But then there are these paragons of engineering that we plan reviewers are faced with:
I just went out on an inspection, because the project "engineer" insisted he wasn't building on top of an existing septic system, despite the fact that a site topo he submitted seemed to say he was.
So I get out there, and the guy is building on top of a large septic system, belonging to the adjacent building (which raises all sorts of interesting questions about land ownership and such).
Pretty much no need to nitpick on that application, but I will anyway - they deserve it.
I just went out on an inspection, because the project "engineer" insisted he wasn't building on top of an existing septic system, despite the fact that a site topo he submitted seemed to say he was.
So I get out there, and the guy is building on top of a large septic system, belonging to the adjacent building (which raises all sorts of interesting questions about land ownership and such).
Pretty much no need to nitpick on that application, but I will anyway - they deserve it.
it is violation of law to do 'their design for them'
in PA the DEP has standing orders to review for compliance, NOT design...that is not their job...in addition there is the question of a non-PE reviewing a PE's work...who is taking all the liability and has legal authority to design the work?
an old trick is to submit with low hanging fruit, they get to comment, you have easy fixes...win-win lol
I've actually had reviewers tell me to do things that were wrong and compromised the design...I would ask them in writing to verify that's what they wanted done, and it would only be done over my formal objection...they backed down every single time...they know that they have no legal responsibility, in fact the review letter say as much, that the review does not relieve the engineer of any responsibility...
like the engineer wants to do something illegal/code violation, or that does not function properly...it's the arrogance that boggles my mind...
I an honestly say, out of the 100's, if not 1000's of review comments I've seen in over 20 years, maybe 10-20 actually contributed to the design...
I've been on both sides, done peer review and compliance review for large FDA regulated process control systems...
there are idiots on both sides...
I put a small pump station in...30 EDU's
I used 265 GPD/EDU (water records put it at 165GPD/EDU actually)
I used a peaking factor of 2.5 (DEP guideline), and a duty factor of 25%, growth factor of 20%...I threw 20% on top for infiltration, it was a new system, no stormwater inflow...houses were close, not a lot of pipe...no chance of growth...that's why it took 20 years to sewer...
30 x 265 x 2.5 x 1/0.25 x 1.2 x 1.2/1440 ~ 80 GPM, he told me to size it at 200 GPM (no idea how he came up with it, think he used 400 GPD/EDU, which is for sizing the pipe)...
I told him I thought 80 was too much, and that 40 would do...
the pump runs ~25 min per day! septic sewage...the floats are 1' apart the pump runs ~1 minute (5' wet well), then sits for almost an hour...
the forcemain was sized for the pump, so it has too much volume exasperating the problem...
we got an oder complaint...he showed up...I explained the problem, and showed him his 'directive'...but guess what? it's still our problem, not his...
so we have an oversized electrical system, forcemain, genset, etc.
look at the times on the posts...I did not even read yours when I made mine...lol
it was a comment in general, not a response to yours...
jeb6294
Well-known member
That was always a fun conversation once someone received one of my comment letters. Most of the engineers were guys I worked with a lot and did enough work in the county that they usually sent in plans that were pretty well ready to go...maybe a little thing to change here or there. My favorites were the new guys who would call in when I told them our regs wouldn't let them do something a certain way and then ask me how they should do it. Since they were usually pricks about it (how dare you tell me I did something wrong) my typical response was usually something along the lines of, "for $200 an hour, I'll draw it up for you."
GulfCoastCivil
Don't Mess With My Oatmeal!
I recently had a RR Crossing permit reviewed. What bothered me was a couple of the comments all referred to this same issue (showing the theoretical embankment line). So I drew it on there and sent it back even though in this situation the theoretical embankment line was under the existing ground the whole time. I found it annoying for the person to be so nitpicky about something that has no play in the spot.
Also, I felt like the reviewer was a bit arrogant because along with the comments they sent the permit application booklet. Which was funny because they emailed me an older version with a much much older blank application accompanying it. I was tempted to email them the link from the RR's website to the newer versions of those things. I think I'll wait till my permit is approved and then do so.
Also, I felt like the reviewer was a bit arrogant because along with the comments they sent the permit application booklet. Which was funny because they emailed me an older version with a much much older blank application accompanying it. I was tempted to email them the link from the RR's website to the newer versions of those things. I think I'll wait till my permit is approved and then do so.
My first offensive experience with a regulator was with the XXDENR storm water permitting program. It was obvious to XXDENR from my calculations that the impervious areas I was reporting were rounded to the nearest 10 sf when they needed something reported to the nearest 1 sf. As a recent graduate from a engineering program with a sound understanding of significant digits, this level of accuracy seemed unreasonable to me. Consider that a car parked in the yard occupies at least 100 sf. How the hell am I to state with any confidence that a residential lot will have 3561 sf of impervious area and will be draining to a pond with a surface area of 15038 sf. I was really bothered by the fact that my "colleague" called me out on this.
Now that I am older and wiser, I understand that my "colleague" is simply an accountant that is held to a standard that is set by a politician and not by an engineer. I also
respect the fact that the intricate details of the permits he issues are open to public scrutiny. I realize that the only way he get can fired is to operate outside the sound engineering principals set forth by a former used car dealer that now occupies a public office.
I do wish that the letters I get from him started out by saying "I'm ignorant, but the law says.."
Now that I am older and wiser, I understand that my "colleague" is simply an accountant that is held to a standard that is set by a politician and not by an engineer. I also
respect the fact that the intricate details of the permits he issues are open to public scrutiny. I realize that the only way he get can fired is to operate outside the sound engineering principals set forth by a former used car dealer that now occupies a public office.
I do wish that the letters I get from him started out by saying "I'm ignorant, but the law says.."
Capt Worley PE
Run silent, run deep
picusld
Well-known member
I deal with the local PA conservation districts daily for E&S review. I think that is an excellent point and question to pose to them when they submit their comment letters. "Is the project compliant per DEP code?" I will let you know how it works out.
I also recently submitted a question regarding the validity of the NPDES permit for disturbances of 1-5 acres with a point source discharge that according to the code and permit has been enforced completely wrong. Will let you know how it turns out.
mcap8
Active member
I work for a big industry where my primary responsiblity is facilitating the environmental permitting process for existing operations, expansions, etc. Since we usually design with what the agencies are looking for in mind, in my experience, most of the permit comments originate from the public comment period and the agencies usually work with us in attempting to address all the issues, which typically translates into compromise of designing for tighter emissions control, less mass loading to waterways, etc.
